Critical incident debriefing toolkit: 1: What is a critical incident?

Abstract
The Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS) blended approach to debriefing encourages educators to purposefully merge various debriefing strategies to tailor discussion to learner needs and learning context. While debriefing is a key component to simulation-based education, few resources exist to promote implementation of specific debriefing approaches. In response to growing demands from simulation programs and facilitators wishing to teach the PEARLS approach to debriefing, we offer a collection of resources to serve as a faculty development guide for implementation of PEARLS. In this article, we discuss common pitfalls and associated solutions when using PEARLS to facilitate debriefings and offer a PEARLS debriefing checklist that can serve as a tool for providing peer feedback on debriefing performance.

Abstract
Despite proven benefits for team and individual performance, a number of perceived barriers limit clinical post–event debriefings, which impacts health care team functioning and patient care. An overemphasis on debriefing after rare events such as cardiac arrest and major trauma resuscitations necessarily means that debriefings will also occur infrequently as well. Similarly, individual coaching conversations that would help promote trainee skill acquisition are lacking. This situation stands in stark contrast to other experiential learning domains such as health care simulation, which view structured feedback, coaching, and debriefing as integral to its educational practices. Better translation of relevant lessons from health care simulation to clinical settings could enhance workplace learning and drive continuous performance improvements, benefitting both clinicians and patients. This article aims to: ( a ) broaden the scope of “debriefing” in clinical settings; ( b ) translate valuable principles and strategies from health care simulation, clinical education, and psychology literatures to clinical post–event debriefings and coaching conversations in pediatric emergency departments; and (c) offer guidance and practical strategies to help busy clinicians implement both clinical event debriefings and coaching conversations in pediatric emergency departments.

Abstract
Ineffective communication can contribute to perioperative adverse events even when a safety checklist is used. The purpose of this project was to improve the overall debriefing process of the surgical safety checklist. We included coaches and used the International Classification for Patient Safety for categorizing any opportunities for improvement that were identified during the debriefing process. The results of our project showed an increase in both the total number of debriefings completed and the number of items discussed when completing the debriefing checklist in comparison with the preintervention compliance audits. We concluded that by using a coaching strategy and method to categorize perioperative opportunities for improvement during the debriefing process, there was improved compliance with completing the debriefing process in our facility.

Abstract
Objectives: Post-resuscitation debriefing (PRD) is a valuable educational tool in emergency medicine. It is recommended by international resuscitation guidelines, has been shown to improve both patient outcomes and resuscitation team performance, and is frequently requested by medical learners. However, there is limited research comparing standardized debriefing frameworks. Not only does this hinder the ability of interested emergency departments (EDs) to adopt PRD, but it limits the quality of future debriefing research. We sought to identify and compare existing PRD frameworks to inform the implementation of effective PRD in emergency medicine.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA standards to identify debriefing frameworks used in the ED and other acute care settings for further analysis. Identified frameworks were analyzed and compared based on a method previously described in the literature.

Results: Our search identified six frameworks, which ranged from simple tools for immediate feedback to complex, hospital-wide systems engineering-based approaches to quality improvement. Key findings were the importance of ensuring debriefing facilitators are properly selected and trained and of tailoring framework design to specific organizational targets. However, there is limited validation data for these frameworks, and more study is needed to identify and validate true best practices in PRD.

Conclusions: All six identified frameworks seem to be effective methods of debriefing. Given the breadth in debriefing methods and goals identified, this suggests that there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach to PRD and that organizations should instead identify their own unique needs and barriers and adopt the debriefing framework that best addresses those needs. Other findings were the importance of well-trained debriefing facilitators and the use of clear roles in organizing debriefings. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of post-resuscitation frameworks with regard to both team performance and patient outcomes.

One vital aspect of emergency medicine management is communication after episodes of care to improve future performance through group reflection on the shared experience. This reflective activity in teams is known as debriefing, and despite supportive evidence highlighting its benefits, many practitioners experience barriers to implementing debriefing in the clinical setting. The aim of this article is to review the current evidence supporting postevent debriefing and discuss practical approaches to implementing debriefing in the emergency department. We will address the who, what, when, where, why, and how of debriefing and provide a practical guide for the clinician to facilitate debriefing in the clinical environment.

This study was carried out to improve patient safety in the operating theatre by the introduction of perioperative briefing and debriefing, which focused on an optimal collaboration between surgical team members.

Abstract
Debriefing is increasingly used to enhance learning and reflection in clinical practice. Nevertheless, barriers to implementing debriefings in the operating room (OR) include lack of time, the availability of trained facilitators, and difficulty gathering the full team after surgery. Spending five minutes on a debriefing during skin closure or between procedures may enhance learning and reflection on practice, generating to improve patient safety. The aim of this study was to explore characteristics, feasibility and content of short debriefings in the OR.

Abstract
The primary survey assessment is a cornerstone of resuscitation processes. The name itself implies that it is the first step in resuscitation. In this article, we argue that in an organized resuscitation the primary survey must be preceded by a series of steps to optimize safety and performance and set the stage for the execution of expert team behavior. Even in the most time critical situations, an effective team will optimize the environment, perform self-assessments of personal readiness and participate in a preemptive team brief. We call these processes the ‘zero point survey’ as it precedes the primary survey. This paper explains the rationale for the zero point survey and describes a structured approach designed to be suitable for all resuscitation situations.

Abstract
We report on our experience with an approach to debriefing that emphasizes disclosing instructors' judgments and eliciting trainees' assumptions about the situation and their reasons for acting as they did. To highlight the importance of instructors disclosing their judgment skillfully, we call the approach "debriefing with good judgment." The approach draws on theory and empirical findings from a 35-year research program in the behavioral sciences on how to improve professional effectiveness through "reflective practice." This approach specifies a rigorous self-reflection process that helps trainees recognize and resolve pressing clinical and behavioral dilemmas raised by the simulation and the judgment of the instructor. The "debriefing with good judgment" approach is comprised of three elements. The first element is a conceptual model drawn from cognitive science. It stipulates that the trainees' "frames"--comprised of such things as knowledge, assumptions, and feelings--drive their actions. The actions, in turn, produce clinical results in a scenario. By uncovering the trainee's internal frame, the instructor can help the learner reframe internal assumptions and feelings and take action to achieve better results in the future. The second element is a stance of genuine curiosity about the trainee's frames. Presuming that the trainee's actions are an inevitable result of their frames, the instructor's job is that of a "cognitive detective" who tries to discover, through inquiry, what those frames are. The instructor establishes a "stance of curiosity" in which the trainees' mistakes are puzzles to be solved rather than simply erroneous. Finally, the approach includes a conversational technique designed to bring the judgment of the instructor and the frames of the trainee to light. The technique pairs advocacy and inquiry. Advocacy is a type of speech that includes an objective observation about and subjective judgment of the trainees' actions. Inquiry is a genuinely curious question that attempts to illuminate the trainee's frame in relation to the action described in the instructor's advocacy. We find that the approach helps instructors manage the apparent tension between sharing critical, evaluative judgments while maintaining a trusting relationship with trainees.

Abstract
Background: The American Heart Association recommends debriefing after attempted resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) to improve resuscitation quality and outcomes. This is the first published study detailing the utilization, process and content of hot debriefings after pediatric IHCA.

Methods: Using prospective data from the Pediatric Resuscitation Quality Collaborative (pediRES-Q), we analyzed data from 227 arrests occurring between February 1, 2016, and August 31, 2017. Hot debriefings, defined as occurring within minutes to hours of IHCA, were evaluated using a modified Team Emergency Assessment Measure framework for qualitative content analysis of debriefing comments.

Results: Hot debriefings were performed following 108 of 227 IHCAs (47%). The median interval to debriefing was 130 min (Interquartile range [IQR] 45, 270). Median debriefing duration was 15 min (IQR 10, 20). Physicians facilitated 95% of debriefings, with a median of 9 participants (IQR 7, 11). After multivariate analysis, accounting for hospital site, debriefing frequency was not associated with patient age, gender, race, illness category or unit type. The most frequent positive (plus) comments involved cooperation/coordination (60%), communication (47%) and clinical standards (41%). The most frequent negative (delta) comments involved equipment (46%), cooperation/coordination (45%), and clinical standards (36%).

Conclusion: Approximately half of pediatric IHCAs were followed by hot debriefings. Hot debriefings were multi-disciplinary, timely, and often addressed issues of team cooperation/coordination, communication, clinical standards, and equipment. Additional studies are warranted to identify barriers to hot debriefings and to evaluate the impact of these debriefings on patient outcomes.

Abstract
Purpose of review: This review explores four different approaches and clarifies objectives for debriefing after a clinical event in the emergency department. Psychological debriefing aims to prevent or reduce symptoms of traumatic stress and normalize recovery. Psychological first aid helps team members provide each other with pragmatic social support. Debriefing for simulation-based education promotes learning by team members. Quality improvement approaches and after action reviews focus on systems improvement.

Recent findings: Qualitative studies have begun to explore interactions between clinical staff after a significant clinical event. Clearer descriptions and measurements of quality improvements and the effect of clinical event debriefing on patient outcomes are appearing. An increasing number of studies describe melded, scripted approaches to the hot debrief.

Summary: Clinical staff have consistently indicated they value debriefing after a significant clinical event. Differing objectives from different approaches have translated into a wide variety of methods and a lack of clarity about relevant outcomes to measure. Recent descriptions of scripted approaches may clarify these objectives and pave the way for measuring relevant outcomes that demonstrate the effectiveness of and find the place for debriefing in the emergency department.

Since 1999, health care professionals have been focusing on To Err Is Human, the Institute of Medicine report that sounded alarms about medical error. As we have strived to reduce the rate of errors, systems-based practices such as electronic order entry and procedure checklists have proliferated. Meanwhile, little attention has been paid to the second half of the adage — “to forgive, divine.” How can we characterize and address the human dimensions of medical error so that patients, families, and clinicians may reach some degree of closure and move toward forgiveness?